Martin luther king jr blvd viaduct portland
Download
1 / 48

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 56 Views
  • Uploaded on

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland. Project Background and Today’s Design Status. Location – Looking Southeast. Closer View - Looking Southeast. Historic Background - MLK. MLK (Union Ave.) built 1938 H-15 Design Live Load. Historic Background – Grand. Grand Ave. built 1964

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland' - julius


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Martin luther king jr blvd viaduct portland
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Viaduct, Portland

  • Project Background and Today’s Design Status




Historic background mlk
Historic Background - MLK

  • MLK (Union Ave.) built 1938

    • H-15 Design Live Load


Historic background grand
Historic Background – Grand

  • Grand Ave. built 1964

    • HS-20 Design Live Load







Early problems
Early Problems

  • Crosses Filled-In Slough

    • Wood Waste

  • Timber Piles Not Driven Deep Enough

  • Partial Structure Settlement

  • ACWS Added to Raise Grade

  • Jacking Attempt after cutting columns. Instead of raising the structure, it lowered the footings.



Today s conditions
Today’s Conditions

  • Structure Settlement, Translation & Deterioration

  • Sufficiency Ratings

    • MLK 19, Grand Ave. 60 (out of 100)

  • SB Weight Restrictions (50,000 lb)

  • Ongoing Maintenance







Stakeholder architectural goals 1
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 1

  • Environmental Assessment & 4(f) Evaluation Process 2001-2002

  • Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC)

  • Improved Vehicular Access

  • Improved Ped. & Bike Access

  • Traffic Calming

  • Landscaping, Planters on Structure


Stakeholder architectural goals 2
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 2

  • Access to Springwater Trail

  • Gateway to SE Portland

  • Appearance Reminiscent of Existing Structure

    • Shorter, Haunched Spans 24 m (80 ft)

    • Deck Overhangs

    • Historic Lighting Fixtures

  • Historic Interpretive Signs (in pylons)

  • Improved Ped. & Bike Access


Stakeholder architectural goals 3
Stakeholder & Architectural Goals 3

  • Architectural Rails

    • Open for Outward Visibility

    • “Not like the Ross Island Bridge”

    • Must meet LRFD Strength & Performance

    • Similar to FHWA Crash-Tested Rail

    • FHWA Concurrence

  • Keep Adjacent Businesses Open

  • Cross Existing UPRR

  • Future Light Rail Transit Beneath





Bridge replacement concept studies 1999 2001
Bridge Replacement Concept Studies (1999-2001)

  • Replace MLK Structure on Existing Alignment

  • Highway Standards

    • 45 mph, 3.6 m Lanes, Std. Metal Rails

  • Prestressed Concrete Girders

    • Approx. 36 m (120 ft.) Spans


New alignment alternatives
New Alignment Alternatives

  • Boulevard (35 mph) Standards

    • Grade Separated Alternative (Chosen)

    • Signalized Alternative (Not Chosen)

    • 3.3 m Lanes, 1.2 m & 1.8 m Shoulders

    • Tight Curves: Shorter Bridge, Less Skew

    • Substandard Horizontal Alignment

      • Accepted By City of Portland via IGA

      • Ownership Transfers to Portland Upon Completion




Engineering solutions
Engineering Solutions

  • Replace MLK Struct., Rehab Grand

  • TS&L (Sept. 2003): Replace Grand?

    • Approx. $3 million extra

    • Best time to replace during this project

    • Wouldn’t have to remove rails, etc. later

    • But, existing structure didn’t meet criteria to replace (SR > 50)

    • Not in original scope

    • Not in the budget


Stage construction challenges
Stage Construction Challenges

  • Narrow Lanes & Shld. on New Struct.

  • Restricted Right-of-Way

  • Traffic Volumes (60,000+ ADT)

  • Maintain 4 Lanes During Construction

  • Temporary Detour Structure (partial)



Superstructure
Superstructure

  • Precast P/S Slab/Box Girders

    • Fits Desired Span Lengths (75’-80’)

    • Haunched for Architectural Appearance

    • Quicker to Build, No Falsework Req’d.

    • Good Structure Economy

    • Spread Boxes w/ Cast Deck

    • Has Been Done Before

  • North 3 Spans CIP P/T Box Girder

    • Flared, Curved, Skewed




Span layout issues
Span Layout Issues

  • Repetitive Spans Promote Economy

  • Try To Avoid Existing Bents

  • Many Utilities, Buried and Overhead

  • Resulting Spans Weren’t Equal



Foundation conditions
Foundation Conditions

  • Silt Overburden Layer

  • Seismic Settlement & Amplification

  • Use Steel H-Piles

    • Driven into Troutdale Gravel Layer

    • Approx. 15-20 m deep North & South

    • Approx. 25-30 m deep at wood waste

  • MSE Wire Retaining Walls

    • CIP Architectural Facing, After Settlement


Logistical challenges during design
Logistical Challenges During Design

  • Decentralization of ODOT in 2004

  • Designers/Drafters in:

    • Region 1, Portland

    • Region 2, East Salem

    • ODOT HQ, Salem

  • Minimal Traffic Control Design Begun

  • DEA, Inc. Recruited for Traffic Control Design, Drafting, Lead Structure Design


Evolving bid schedule
Evolving Bid Schedule

  • November 2005: Change of Course

    • Cost of Grand rehab approached replacement cost

    • Decision to Replace Grand Ave.

    • Split Contracts

      • March 9, 2006 bid for earthwork, drainage, utilities ($5 million)

      • Nov. 2006 bid for structure and retaining walls





Innovative contracting methods
Innovative Contracting Methods

  • Complex Project with Significant Risk Elements

    • Want an experienced contractor with innovative abilities

    • Think it through ahead of time


Innovative contracting cont 1
Innovative Contracting, cont. 1

  • Best Value Bid Process (A+C+D) on Structure Work

    • “A” Component: Price (40%)

    • “C” Component: Qualifications (40%)

    • “D” Component: Tech. Approach (20%)

    • Not Used: “B” Component (Time)


Innovative contracting cont 2
Innovative Contracting, cont. 2

  • ODOT Experience with Best Value Contracting:

    • I-5 Interstate Bridge Lift Span Trunnion Replacement (1997)

    • St. Johns Bridge Rehabilitation (2003-05)

    • Both Were A+C

    • Procedure now in place at Office of Procurement to streamline Best Value Contracting


Philosophical considerations
Philosophical Considerations

  • Budget Limitations

    • $32 million available from Bridge Program

  • Scope creep

    • Project now approx. $50 million range

  • Unfunded Stakeholder Demands

  • Awareness of Project Scope

    • Grand Ave. not part of original scope


Philosophical considerations cont
Philosophical Considerations cont.

  • Context Sensitive Solutions

    • Was the original scope realistic considering the setting?

    • Old industrial area vs. redevelopment visions

    • Transportation impacts on communities

    • Cause urban blight vs. enhancement



ad